The original comparison (lost in the threading somewhere above) was about poverty rate comparisons between countries, not the US census definition (which is more based on an absolute), nor the World Bank international absolute definition (which is more like $1.25/day, which no on in the US really fits without really trying hard) so I was using the definition used in the original comparison. See Poverty in France: "were below the poverty line (which, according to INSEE's criteria, is half of the median income)." INSEE is the French equivalent of the US Census for economic statistics. INSEE has recently moved to a 60% of median income measurement.

The original stats I was responding to also don't take into account in-kind benefits (not income), which makes them even worse.

My post in response to the stats previously cited was that "It's really a dumb way to compare poverty across countries.", so don't expect me to be defending the measurements used. They certainly aren't the ones I'd pick to do an actual comparison.

I realize you may be not in the U.S. and so are speaking out of ignorance based on the false impressions given by some news media, but anyone in the U.S. within 133% of the poverty line we've been discussing is eligible for medicaid, which covers their health care costs, even retroactively.

Also, generally speaking, anyone who can't afford college in the U.S. is eligible for grants which will cover virtually 100% of costs at most public universities. It won't cover more expensive universities (some people take out low interest loans to help cover that), but higher education costs in the U.S. are very much needs based. Basically, they take whatever money you have, then cover the rest.

They're typically defining "poverty" as less than 1/2 the median income. It's really a dumb way to compare poverty across countries.

The U.S median income for a household is much higher than in France, thus someone below the "poverty rate" in the Unites States can be much wealthier than someone above the "poverty rate" in France.

In France, even with purchasing power parity, the median household income is (depending on if you use Gallup or OECD numbers) 70-77% of what it is in the United States. Using Gallup numbers, the "poverty line" in the US would be $22K/year vs $16K/year in France. Remember, these number take into account purchasing power parity (PPP), so you can literally buy about the same things in each country.

To put that into perspective for variations within the United States, the median income in Maine or Hawaii is 65% of that of Virginia or Utah (adjusted for cost of living).

According to the OECD, the "poverty rate" in Mexico is about $2250, based on a PPP median income of $4500. By their measurement, a barely "poor" person in the U.S. ($22K) would be considered upper middle class in Mexico. I won't bring up the really poor countries in Africa and elsewhere, but the "poverty rate" they're talking about is virtually valueless across countries for comparison purposes.

Put another way, the median income and thus "poverty rate" of Mississippi is higher than that of France, so I know which country I'd rather live in...

So, an addin something like UnloadTab?

I stated "most relevant empirical scientific study".

Funny how if you believe that's a misrepresentation, you haven't provided a more relevant empirical scientific study. I guess you couldn't find one.

Right now, all you have is an opinion ungrounded in logic nor facts and that doesn't match the personal experience of the majority of the people here. You're going to have a pretty tough time convincing anyone with just that.

That would make sense. Having managed a K-8 school in the past, I'm familiar with overall employment statistics for teachers and male teachers are also more likely to leave the profession within 5 years, so that may be a big contributing factor on both sides of the occupational sex-selection differences.

It makes sense that if you think you're going to like a type of job, but end up not actually liking it, you'll move into another career path at some point earlier rather than later in the process.

As you have no facts to back up your opinions, using only pointless and inaccurate insults as your "best" arguments, it's clear you don't actually have any basis for your opinions. You can pretend to talk about "reality", but apparently are unable to provide any "reality-based" support for your claims.

Of course, based on your rant about "careers", you aren't able to read, either. Interest in college sports isn't about a career, but apparently you don't know much about sports, either.

You should consider reevaluating if you are capable of changing your worldview when presented with facts, or if you completely rely on indoctrination from others for your opinions.

You stated "gender counts against them in the job interview".

The most relevant empirical scientific study shows the complete opposite.

Total employment numbers are apparently based on something completely different than you stated. Hmm... maybe it's because actually, despite being biased towards hiring women, despite thousands of special programs to try and convince women otherwise, more men are interested in this type of work.

College sports are the same way. Studies have shown that a much higher percentage of men than women are interested in participation in sports in college. So those women who are interested in college sports participation have vastly more opportunities in college sports than men do, because they have fewer women pursuing the same amount of available positions.

Would it completely destroy your worldview to realize that men and women have different interests? And that women can be discriminated in favor of, yet still make up a lower percentage in a group because they just aren't interested in being in the group?

The relevant statistic for equal opportunity is for equally qualified individuals,do men have an advantage over women in the hiring process because of their sex. The answer from the study is the opposite. Women actually have a huge advantage. If you are looking for fairness, you'd be demanding that women get less of an advantage in hiring, not more.

So if being a woman actually counted for them in STEM hiring (not against them), then you'd agree there wasn't a problem?

Don't let me disturb your worldview with facts, but in every IT or other STEM area I've seen (in the US at least), Women would be hired ahead of Men if they were anywhere close to being able to do the job and were interested in it.

Google is your friend.

Took all of 5 seconds to find examples like this from Wired.

The first link in the list has this regarding CAFE regulations of the time:

Except of course, if you read the article (I know,must be new here) Ford actually _won_ the Pinto case and while they had previously (before the court case) agreed to install that plastic wall, the expert opinion was that it wouldn't actually accomplish anything and wouldn't have made any difference in the specific situation of the court case.

It's like saying horses should all be recalled because someone might fall off of them. Pintos were no more dangerous than other similar cars from all the other car companies. It's just how small, light cars were built in the days of high gas prices and associated regulations. Technology has advanced since then, but there are still trade-offs.

What most people "know" about Pintos is largely media-driven, not factual.

I'm in AZ also and are familiar with the race you're talking about. I knew they were utility-company supported, didn't see anything Koch related. Do you have a news report or campaign financing source or something I can look it showing major Koch money involvement somewhere?

Apparently we've reached a consensus among this scientifically literate community that AGW isn't proven, then? ;)

I wonder how long it will take for the school to be half filled with boys who like STEM topics and figure out that if they claim they "identify" as female, they get to go to this school and be surrounded by girls as a bonus?

Is this place just meant to have an entrance exam specifically designed to ensure just the best min-maxers get in?

Here's what was dropped by the editor from the original story submission:

Male economists were the only university STEM group found not sexist in their hiring.

No word yet on what steps universities are planning to take to remedy this apparent bias in hiring.

I find it interesting what he chose to cut out. I guess you can either argue it's for brevity, or because they want to avoid controversy in the original post, but compared to some of the other posts I've seen, maybe not...

Anyway, I found that male economists difference in the study interesting, but it's also fun to see that the researchers assumed (as conventional wisdom in their field) the exact opposite result until they realized no one had actually done any empirical work on it, then their work turned out the opposite of what "everyone" in their field thought it would. So I commend them for having the honesty to do actual science.